Image ImageImage Image

Smith: Boylan riding vets.

Moderators: HomoSapien, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23

User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,582
And1: 36,931
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Smith: Boylan riding vets. 

Post#1 » by DuckIII » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:13 pm

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com ... 174.column

The article discusses how Boylan has used vets vs. pups in his first 6 games and possible reasons why.

Warning: Many of you will become angry.

It appears Jim Boylan, a solid, knowledgeable basketball guy, has done well in going 4-2. But what's most interesting to me is to watch the way he has done it. It's something of the informal handbook for interim coaches.

I've seen it before, used most successfully by Jeff Van Gundy in New York and Lawrence Frank in New Jersey: Go to your go-to guys.


A coach generally loses his job when his best, or most important, players give up on him or lose enthusiasm. By most accounts, that seemed to be Ben Wallace and Deng, though the play of Kirk Hinrich and Gordon clearly was off too.


There's Sam again vaguely mentioning Wallace and Deng as the most disgruntled under Skiles. However, he says that Wallace and Deng seemed to "give up". Strange thing to say of Deng considering that at the time of Skiles' termination, Luol was the only consistent player on the team who had manage to effectively reproduce his level of play from the prior season.

What Boylan seems to have done is make a commitment to the regulars, even more so than Skiles did. It's what Van Gundy did when he replaced Don Nelson and what Frank did in succeeding Byron Scott. Patrick Ewing had rebelled against Nelson, and Jason Kidd against Scott.

"You owe it to yourself to coach your personality and your beliefs," Van Gundy said. "And then do the players have the innate basketball character that they'll give respect to the coaching position not for who is coaching but what it stands for?"

Here, it appeared Wallace had shut it down on Skiles, though he has been much more interested and involved since.


In the six games since Boylan has been coaching, every regular has played far more than he did under Skiles, and the kids off the bench have played less.

The stated idea has been to go with the veterans to save the season, but it's also a way to perhaps solidify a position. Boylan appears to be betting the regulars will produce better under him, enhancing his chances of maintaining the job.

Like many coaches before him, Skiles had taken out Wallace when trailing late or in close games because of his poor free-throw shooting. But Boylan has stuck with Wallace, who even made one free throw for the difference Saturday night against the Kings. Wallace is averaging 39.2 minutes per game under Boylan, about seven minutes more than under Skiles and 10 more minutes than in the last six under Skiles.

Joe Smith is up about seven minutes per game, Hinrich almost five, Deng about five, and Gordon is averaging more minutes under Boylan coming off the bench than he did starting under Skiles. Gordon is up more than three minutes per game compared to the last six games under Skiles.

Conversely, though Tyrus Thomas felt his benchings had become personal under Skiles, he's playing even less under Boylan and is averaging about three fewer minutes per game now than in the last six under Skiles. Joakim Noah is down more than two minutes, Thabo Sefolosha about four minutes and Aaron Gray about 10 minutes.

It's part of being in the uncertain position of interim coach.


Granted, these are purely Sam's musings, and I happen to disagree with his basic premise to an extent, but this falls squarely in line with what many of you believe is happening and, more importantly, why its happening.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
sk33
Head Coach
Posts: 6,456
And1: 0
Joined: Dec 14, 2004
Location: BULLS NATION (in NY)

 

Post#2 » by sk33 » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:18 pm

I saved myself the trouble and didn't read. Thanks for the heads up.
Trade Wallace

(this worked for Skiles. Lets go for 2)
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 60,540
And1: 37,778
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

 

Post#3 » by coldfish » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:20 pm

Its unfortunate that the discussion still revolves around the players and their playing time. It rarely drifts to discuss tactics.

IMO, Chicago's biggest issues revolve around the seeming fact that teams have figured the Bulls out:
- Don't guard Ben Wallace, he won't hurt you
- Double Gordon as soon as you can, you can get turnovers
- Let Hinrich penetrate, he won't shoot.
- Drive and kick on offense, the team always will collapse on the ball when it goes inside leaving open jumpers.

When Paxson let Skiles go, he said a lot of things, almost all of which I agreed with. One of which was the predictability of the team. Boylan has seemingly gone in the opposite direction that Paxson publicly discussed.

Was Paxson just blowing smoke or is Boylan ignoring Paxson in an attempt to win as many games as possible to continue his career?
Cliff Levingston
RealGM
Posts: 22,667
And1: 1,094
Joined: May 29, 2003
Location: Cliff Levingston is omnipresent.
       

 

Post#4 » by Cliff Levingston » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:23 pm

Sam doesn't really say anything that Boylan hasn't said or showed so far.
AirP.
RealGM
Posts: 37,152
And1: 32,162
Joined: Nov 21, 2007

Re: Smith: Boylan riding vets. 

Post#5 » by AirP. » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:30 pm

DuckIII wrote:http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-080106samsmithchicagobulls,0,751174.column

The article discusses how Boylan has used vets vs. pups in his first 6 games and possible reasons why.

Warning: Many of you will become angry.


The firing of Skiles had very little to do with the record of the Bulls, it had everything to do with the team no longer responding to him, you can lose in the NBA... but you can't give up and Chicago's players overall looked like they gave up.

Paxson is looking at the future of this team and when he looked at coaching prospects, he didn't like anything he saw so he's waiting till the end of the year to hire a permanent coach, I would be very surprised if Boylan was retained as the coach.

He's given Boylan a short leash to try to keep this team competitive, it's a last ditch effort before a total youth movement. Boylan is going with the the guys who are most consistent(not the best possibly) to try to turn this season around.

To me, it's the worst case scenario that the Bulls could be in, not nearly good enough to battle for a championship and not bad enough(yet) to develop our future for next year and beyond.

I think Paxson is very close to telling Boylan to go to development mode... and the funny thing is, with Noah, Gray, Tyrus and Thabo sprinkled in with Deng, Gordon, Hinrich and Smith... I think they'll be a better team even while the young guys are developing.

I like our future frontcourt... Noah, Tyrus, Deng... the problem to me is the backcourt, Gordon would be the perfect 6th man if his ego would allow it as a full time thing. Hinrich... I'm not really down with him, would like to get a SG who can take it to the basket and dunk it or hit an outside shot and would absolutely love to have a play making PG.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 58,663
And1: 18,775
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

 

Post#6 » by dougthonus » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:32 pm


When Paxson let Skiles go, he said a lot of things, almost all of which I agreed with. One of which was the predictability of the team. Boylan has seemingly gone in the opposite direction that Paxson publicly discussed.

Was Paxson just blowing smoke or is Boylan ignoring Paxson in an attempt to win as many games as possible to continue his career?


I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I loved Paxson's post-Skiles-firing interviews. However, things have since not gone anywhere remotely as he discussed since then. You then have 2 main possible theories that spring to mind:

1) The Duck Theory (my apologies mr III if this isn't exactly your theory): Paxson and Boylan have agreed to ride the vets initially to right the ship, and will then mix the youth back in later.

2) The Thonus Theory: Boylan is riding vets to save his job/earn his next job and will not stop unless the team goes in the absolute tank. (whether Paxson approves of this or steps in at some point is up for debate, but a the very least he's giving him enough rope initially to right the ship)

Paxson did have 2 primary points in his post Skiles firing interviews:
1) The team needs to turn it around.
2) We need to play the young guys more.

The team has turned it around to an extent. I think that turn around is overstated because of the quality of opponents, but it's definitely there at least a little bit. Ben Wallace and Ben Gordon are playing markedly better. Is Paxson happy just accomplishing point #1 if it leads to a playoff birth and 1st or 2nd round exit? Maybe he is. We know that there is big money on the line for the Bulls if they make the playoffs, so it's certainly not absurd to think that Paxson is directed to pursue #1 at all costs by ownership (or maybe not directly at the behest of ownership, but he knows how to butter their bread so to speak).

I initially thought Paxson was inline with my thought that doing #2 would help achieve #1, but it doesn't seem like that's the case, or at least that hasn't been communicated to Boylan. I do agree that there is a certain logic in Sam's article here. Ben Wallace has given up on Skiles, if you can get him back on your side then you are creating a good player that didn't really exist for Skiles. Same with any other player who quit on Skiles (though other than Ben Wallace, I think the rest were locks to rebound with him gone anyway).
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,582
And1: 36,931
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

 

Post#7 » by DuckIII » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:42 pm

dougthonus wrote:1) The Duck Theory (my apologies mr III if this isn't exactly your theory): Paxson and Boylan have agreed to ride the vets initially to right the ship, and will then mix the youth back in later.


No, thats basically it in a nutshell. Hopefully it won't prove to be mere wishful thinking on my part.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
Cliff Levingston
RealGM
Posts: 22,667
And1: 1,094
Joined: May 29, 2003
Location: Cliff Levingston is omnipresent.
       

 

Post#8 » by Cliff Levingston » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:43 pm

When it comes to Ben Wallace, Cliff Levingston wonders how long it'll take Boylan to lose him as well. If we ever do start playing the young guys more, it inevitably will cut into Wallace's minutes and we've heard how he sulks when he doesn't get those big minutes he thinks he deserves.

Doug: how bout a 3rd theory? Paxson told Boylan to showcase the vets; namely Wallace, Nocioni and Smith so he could get a better trade for them en route to clearing PT for the young guys. Cliff Levingston is clinging to that hope.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 58,663
And1: 18,775
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

 

Post#9 » by dougthonus » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:49 pm

I never agree in the 'showcasing' theory. If a guy has been playing bad, then playing him more is just as likely to lower his value as it is to raise it.

Especially with well established players, GMs already know who these guys are, have plenty of film on them, and likely know what they expect from them. I suppose it's possible, but it's hard for me to imagine a GM looking at Andreas Nocioni and saying 'well he did play better for 6 games, I think I will trade for him'.

With Ben Wallace you could see a GM potentially changing his mind, because they could blame his poor play under Skiles on Skiles, however, Wallace was already playing enough minutes for a GM to come to that conclusion. You didn't need to start having him go 40 a night.
#1TKfan
General Manager
Posts: 9,519
And1: 190
Joined: Jan 06, 2006

 

Post#10 » by #1TKfan » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:54 pm

dougthonus wrote:

When Paxson let Skiles go, he said a lot of things, almost all of which I agreed with. One of which was the predictability of the team. Boylan has seemingly gone in the opposite direction that Paxson publicly discussed.

Was Paxson just blowing smoke or is Boylan ignoring Paxson in an attempt to win as many games as possible to continue his career?


I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I loved Paxson's post-Skiles-firing interviews. However, things have since not gone anywhere remotely as he discussed since then. You then have 2 main possible theories that spring to mind:

1) The Duck Theory (my apologies mr III if this isn't exactly your theory): Paxson and Boylan have agreed to ride the vets initially to right the ship, and will then mix the youth back in later.

2) The Thonus Theory: Boylan is riding vets to save his job/earn his next job and will not stop unless the team goes in the absolute tank. (whether Paxson approves of this or steps in at some point is up for debate, but a the very least he's giving him enough rope initially to right the ship)

Paxson did have 2 primary points in his post Skiles firing interviews:
1) The team needs to turn it around.
2) We need to play the young guys more.

The team has turned it around to an extent. I think that turn around is overstated because of the quality of opponents, but it's definitely there at least a little bit. Ben Wallace and Ben Gordon are playing markedly better. Is Paxson happy just accomplishing point #1 if it leads to a playoff birth and 1st or 2nd round exit? Maybe he is. We know that there is big money on the line for the Bulls if they make the playoffs, so it's certainly not absurd to think that Paxson is directed to pursue #1 at all costs by ownership (or maybe not directly at the behest of ownership, but he knows how to butter their bread so to speak).

I initially thought Paxson was inline with my thought that doing #2 would help achieve #1, but it doesn't seem like that's the case, or at least that hasn't been communicated to Boylan. I do agree that there is a certain logic in Sam's article here. Ben Wallace has given up on Skiles, if you can get him back on your side then you are creating a good player that didn't really exist for Skiles. Same with any other player who quit on Skiles (though other than Ben Wallace, I think the rest were locks to rebound with him gone anyway).


i havent thought about that. that would make sense for pax to achieve that goal. but does that mean he doesnt trust his young picks to get the job done? i honestly think the bulls could still make it to the playoffs w/ the kids getting a lot of the PT.

hasnt been communicated w/ boylan? i believed ONE of the reasons skiles was fired was so that the kids can get some more PT. but, like you said, it doesnt appear to be the case.
this puts a damper on my day. pax gets what he wants by having boylan play the vets to carry us to the playoffs to make management happy. the fans, ( or a lot of the fans ) get dissapointed because we know whats in store for us in the post season.
User avatar
Magilla_Gorilla
RealGM
Posts: 32,059
And1: 4,479
Joined: Oct 24, 2006
Location: Sunday Morning coming down...
         

 

Post#11 » by Magilla_Gorilla » Mon Jan 7, 2008 3:57 pm

dougthonus wrote:I never agree in the 'showcasing' theory. If a guy has been playing bad, then playing him more is just as likely to lower his value as it is to raise it.



As much as I hate to, I have to agree. The only time I think showcasing comes into play is with formerly injured players.
Sham - Y U NO sell me a t-shirt? Best OB/GYN Houston
User avatar
Mr. Tibbs
Head Coach
Posts: 6,447
And1: 497
Joined: Jun 25, 2006

 

Post#12 » by Mr. Tibbs » Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:40 am

but what about the case of wallace? he's getting 39 mpg or something...but its real easy to look past that and see that his numbers are all up...i'm not saying the bulls are showcasing him but if they are i'd say they're doing a good job. Even if he still doesn't really fit here, we're making his numbers look solid. If we were to trade him i'd say his value would be alot higher now than if we didn't play him.
RIP Johnny Red Kerr, Norm Van Lier, Pdenninggolden, Bullsmaniac
User avatar
Rerisen
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 105,369
And1: 25,052
Joined: Nov 23, 2003

 

Post#13 » by Rerisen » Tue Jan 8, 2008 5:02 am

Cliff Levingston wrote:When it comes to Ben Wallace, Cliff Levingston wonders how long it'll take Boylan to lose him as well.


That is what is frustrating about Wallace. The feeling that there is no middle ground. Either you trust him and ride him all the way, 35-40 minutes a game, including at the end of game crunch time minutes (when it might not always make sense) or else you lose him.

I would like for there to be a middle ground. Ride Wallace when he is worth riding and go to the youngsters when he is not, or they are having a big game.

But if it unfortunately, cannot be a middle ground, and Wallace makes it his way or the highway. Then I will choose the youngsters and I don't really care if Boylan loses him. Because while the good Ben Wallace might be gaining you a new player like Doug says, its not a good enough player you are gaining to where its worth icing out the development of the young players almost entirely.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 58,663
And1: 18,775
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

 

Post#14 » by dougthonus » Tue Jan 8, 2008 5:38 am

I agree.

I wouldn't play Wallace more than 30 minutes a night, and at the first sign of lack of effort his ass would be nailed to the bench the rest of the night.

If he then got cranky, I'd tell him to play harder, and if it didn't work I'd send his ass home.

Of course, that's because I don't think Ben Wallace, at his best, is still a significant upgrade. I'd be willing to lose that player vs lose the development of 3 other players.
User avatar
Neusch23
Head Coach
Posts: 7,250
And1: 59
Joined: Jul 04, 2005
Location: Green Bay
     

 

Post#15 » by Neusch23 » Tue Jan 8, 2008 3:03 pm

I am sick of this, really.

Most here were in near panic mode when the Bulls were loosing and I am sure you were screaming at the TV of their play under skiles?

You jumped for Joy with hearing Skiles is gone.

Pax then kept Boylan back and we watched Meyers get run over by the spurs.

Then pax gets on the radio. What is his job now?

He needs to save face with the fans. He needs put them at ease.

He isn't going to say. Look, I am going to try and make this trade, or we are going to show case this player. NEVER.

He told you what he felt many of you wanted to hear after stating what is looking like the only truth he said during the few days after the firing.

He said he wanted to win, to save the season.

I have been around coachs, basketball programs, etc long enough to know that you don't start a new program, system, or anything from scratch unless you're completely re building.

Pax didn't say that.

He didn't hire a new coach to install his system. He brought in a guy to finish the season, to try and win more games.

Even if Pax said play the young guys more, do you think that he is going to question him when we are winning?

He is getting the team to start to play like they should be.

It is what it is.

If Pax wants the kids to play now I see him as having two choices. Take the bench himself, which would look really stupid now. Or make a trade to clean up the roster, and look to go a different direction with the team.

I do believe that most here agree that we can't win a championship with this crew.

I would love to end up with a lotto pick this year, and make a trade for Pau.
User avatar
kyrv
RealGM
Posts: 60,439
And1: 3,789
Joined: Jan 02, 2003
Location: Intimidated by TNT

 

Post#16 » by kyrv » Tue Jan 8, 2008 6:48 pm

Boylan riding vets


Is he riding vets like Skiles used to ride Du? :wavefinger:
Bill Walton wrote: Keep the music playing.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 58,663
And1: 18,775
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

 

Post#17 » by dougthonus » Tue Jan 8, 2008 6:54 pm


If Pax wants the kids to play now I see him as having two choices. Take the bench himself, which would look really stupid now. Or make a trade to clean up the roster, and look to go a different direction with the team.


Or, option C:

Call Boylan and tell him to play the young guys more.
AirP.
RealGM
Posts: 37,152
And1: 32,162
Joined: Nov 21, 2007

 

Post#18 » by AirP. » Tue Jan 8, 2008 8:50 pm

dougthonus wrote:

If Pax wants the kids to play now I see him as having two choices. Take the bench himself, which would look really stupid now. Or make a trade to clean up the roster, and look to go a different direction with the team.


Or, option C:

Call Boylan and tell him to play the young guys more.


I think Paxson actually has a plan, of course it can change but he's thought this out...

First step...
Paxson is trying to change the culture of the Bulls, from a... I hate going to work, long tough practices and adapting your play to the system to enjoying your job again and working on individual player talents and trying to get the best out of the players.

Second step...
Fixing the team, fighting for minutes are over for now. A set rotation based on the vets has been in place. Vets and young players know their place instead of having no idea if they're playing and if so how long they'll be playing... you never know if you need to pace yourself or go all out.

Third step(we're not there yet)...
Start putting the best players on the court together, this means mixing the vets with the youth. I fully expect Tyrus back at staring PF with Smith playing backup PF/C. Wallace baring trade will continue being the center but we'll start seeing more Noah, Thabo and Gray.

Fourth Step...
Evaluate the players and make moves. Paxson has basically been going with what Skiles tells him, putting his full confidence in Skiles. Now Paxson is going to be around the team more and have to decide who he thinks he needs to keep and who needs to be moved. Deng was untouchable when Skiles was here, it'll be interesting if that continues now that he's gone.

I do believe that Paxson has decided that there will be a point in this season that he has to decide on whether to press the young guys play more button. I think we'll know if that button has been pressed if a trade that doesn't make an immediate positive effect is pulled, as in moving a player(s) like Nocioni, Wallace or Smith for what we feel isn't a fair offer, to free up more minutes for the young guys.

I just long for a season we know what we have, we're happy with what we have and it's all about winning games instead of the who's going to play tonight carousel we've been dealing with for a while.

Return to Chicago Bulls